Effectiveness of tDCS on Dysmenorrhoea: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dysmenorrhoea, or menstrual cramps, involves chronic pelvic pain, with Primary Dysmenorrhoea (PDM) being common. Symptoms like abdominal pain, back pain, nausea, fatigue, and diarrhoea occur with menstruation, lasting 8–72 hours, and affect physical health, mood, relationships, and work. Prevalence ranges from 34% to 94%, and long-term PDM may alter brain metabolism and pain pathways. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS), effective in chronic pain conditions, shows potential for relieving PDM pain and enhancing quality of life. To evaluate the effectiveness of tDCS in alleviating pain associated with dysmenorrhea. A systematic review of Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) was conducted using databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. Studies comparing tDCS with sham stimulation or standard care for dysmenorrhea were included. A total of 112 participants were included. The primary outcome measures were pain evaluated by numeric rating scale and McGill Questionnaire score. Secondary outcomes measures were responses to the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, Hamilton Anxiety Scale. Baseline data were performed during the first menstrual cycle, and during the second menstrual cycle, participants were conducted to tDCS treatment, and postintervention data were collected. All the collected RCTs demonstrate that tDCS applied over motor and prefrontal cortices significantly reduced pain intensity and improved functional outcomes in women with dysmenorrhea. The effects were sustained with multiple sessions, and minimal adverse effects were reported. The tDCS is a promising non-pharmacological intervention for managing dysmenorrhea.Further large-scale RCTs are needed to confirm its efficacy and optimise stimulation parameters.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".